Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No 4th Wall to Break


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete, and endorse the original speedy deletion. No assertion or indication of notability, no reliable sources in evidence. The "keep" opinions are all indifferent to the pertinent policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:N, and are accordingly not taken into account. Sandstein 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No 4th Wall to Break

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was speedied, yet I can't agree with the reasoning. It may well not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but AFD is the place to determine this. Not speedy deletion. Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Honestly, what does it really matter? Information is information, and I thought the goal behind Wikipedia was to centralize as much of it as possible. So long as it's accurate, why does it matter if it's deemed "important"? Importance is hugely subjective - if I were in charge of deciding what articles are important enough to keep in WP, you'd see a whole lot less about Hollywood entertainment, for example. Yet Hollywood information stays - I can go check out Hally Barre's bio if I'm so inclined. Why shouldn't I be able to dig up information on some obscure webcomic, too? Herve661 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Good-Ash 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD hasn't been lodged properly. There is no template on the article. Close this AfD? TaintedZebra 11:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...or - we could, like, add the template as this AFD only got started an hour ago? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep'. It seems to me there is a bias on wikipedia for deletion of web content. But nowadays, a large amount of new material is created on the internet. Just because something is on the web and is created by private people does not imply it is not notable. Being a fan of comics, I know this is the case here. I've met several people who read it at the same time as me, while there are tons of comics on-line.
 * Notability...
 * Speedy Delete "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." CountSlackula 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete no claim of notability in the article that I can see. Can you point it out? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DITTO!!! I don't think that "long-running" means "notable." But I could be wrong. -- Ben 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Its important that we preserve these early examples of web comics. Its been going for a while and think that is what makes it notable. scope_creep 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It hasn't "been going for awhile"... it started in 2002 and ended in 2006. And it's hardly an early example of webcomics either.  Did you even read the article?  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has actually restarted as of the 22nd of JulyDondelelcaro 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote to keep any and all webcomics; let's stop making the webcomic community angry and upset. Samboy 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Srsly? Please tell me that this is sarcasm. Please. -- Ben 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of how many people get pissed, this is a non-notable webcomic in the sense that it has ZERO indepenant coverage in reliable sources. There very well MAY BE hundreds of notable web comics; I take no stance on any others that may be notable.  This one presents no evidence that it is, per the requirement that all articles present evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independant sources.  There is no evidence of that here.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that we don't know if an article of this type is not notable or not. There is simply no way of at this time to measure in real time how many people have read this web comic. The way the notability policy in written in Wikipedia is based on traditional non web ideas of how notability should be measured. I think it is notable by the fact that it is a web comic and and a new type of media. scope_creep 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Wikipedia recognizes web-based sources as being just as reliable as non-web based sources.  All that is needed is some form of editorial control, some sort of edited web-page, as in not a blog or open forum.  I and every other person voting for delete would gladly vote keep if some reliable sources were provided.  All we need to see is that SOMEONE has reviewed this in a reliable source.  SHOW US A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT COVERS THIS, and it gets kept just like any other article.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Other than the fact that someone deleted the obviously fair use images from the article I see nothing wrong with the article. It's well written, well formatted.  Just because you feel web comics shouldn't be in Wikipedia isn't a good enough reason to delete.  I feel anything about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsy Lohan is non notable, should I afd every article about pseudo "celebrities"?  Hansonc 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not one person here has said anything that webcomics in general should not have articles at wikipedia. HOWEVER, this ONE webcomic has NO coverage in reliable sources as required per WP:N and WP:WEB guidelines.  If such reliable source coverage can be produced, it will meet requirements and probably be kept.  However, please avoid putting words into the mouths of other editors.  Doing so is incivil and shows that you lack good faith in your fellow editors.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be widely mentioned on webcomic-related pages; someone who knows more about the subject than me can probably figure out which ones are appropriate as sources. --Carnildo 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now would probably be a good time to cough up these "webcomic-related pages" that mention this webcomic. Do you think that any of them qualify as reliable sources? -- Ben 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any of them do or not -- Google searches for webcomic-related things tend to rank other webcomics above third-party discussions -- but given the number and variety of places it's mentioned, there's probably a reliable source or two somewhere. --Carnildo 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the initial speedy was incorrect and it should have been taken to AfD at that point, even though the article doesn't establish notability. Articles with a decent amount of content and a history of edits by many people need to get more consideration, and sometimes notability can be established during the AfD discussion. This is less likely to happen now since the article has been deleted for so long. The web comic clearly exists. However, there are no reliable sources given, and unless they can be supplied, the article would need to be truncated to "No 4th Wall to Break is a webcomic at " - and that would be speedy deleted.- gadfium 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being able to refer easily to the antecedents and influences of other deviant webcomics and explain succinctly the nature of that influence is useful. While the article itself could be cleaned up and could make the claims for these influences more eloquently, it being undeleted is kind of a prerequisite for that to happen.Dondelelcaro 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "deviant webcomics." Is the argument here that we should keep the article so that we can add information on how this webcomic has influenced other webcomics? The text can be moved to user space and worked on there. If you have evidence of these influences, then now might be a good time to add them. They might help convince the community of the notability of this webcomic. -- Ben 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notability? I thought was a Informative website not a talent contest. We need to keep all the articles on webcomics not just pick and choose. If the the dictionary decided to be picky about words or the meaning of them where the hell would we get nifty swear words?
 * And another thing It's off its hiatus now.
 * Please read WP:N and WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all, there are some standards for inclusion.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Good-Ash, you may want to read Notability for an explanation of what notability means on Wikipedia. Nobody is using a "pick and choose" methodology here; this is about reliable secondary sources.  The encyclopedia cannot inform anyone without sources to draw information from. --Phirazo 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This webcomic is not notable, since it has zero secondary sources. The speedy delete was the correct decision (no claim of notability), and this should have gone through DRV instead of AfD. --Phirazo 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete was the correct idea. No reputable third-party sources for anything here. --Dragonfiend 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & cleanup - There are sources. Someone should find them. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence for finding sources is on "the editor who adds or restores material"(WP:V). Those removing content due to lack of sources need not prove there are no sources.  It is not enought to assert "there must be sources" to keep an article - editors must find sources and add them to the article.  --Phirazo 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.